When reading the Koran, it is vitally important to keep in mind that Westerners, whether religious or not, and Muslims often have vastly differing frames of reference, even when considering the same individuals or concepts. Several years ago, former President George W. Bush and Karen Hughes, his former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, issued greetings to the world’s Muslims on the occasion of the Islamic Feast of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca, the Hajj, and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son.

In December 2006, Bush issued a statement that read in part, “For Muslims in America and around the world, Eid al-Adha is an important occasion to give thanks for their blessings and to remember Abraham’s trust in a loving God. During the four days of this special observance, Muslims honor Abraham’s example of sacrifice and devotion to God by celebrating with friends and family, exchanging gifts and greetings, and engaging in worship through sacrifice and charity.”

And the previous January, Hughes had declared:

Eid is a celebration of commitment and obedience to God and also of God’s mercy and provision for all of us. It is a time of family and community, a time of charity….I want to read to you a message from President Bush: “I send greetings to Muslims around the world as you celebrate Eid al-Adha. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham placed his faith in God above all else. During Eid al-Adha, Muslims celebrate Abraham’s devotion and give thanks for God’s mercy and many blessings.”

In speaking of Abraham, even when doing so in the context of Eid al-Adha, Bush and Hughes were probably thinking of Genesis 22:15-18, in which Abraham is rewarded for his faith and told he will become a blessing to the nations: “By your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

But the Muslim audiences that Bush and Hughes were addressing probably did not read Genesis. They read the Koran, in which Allah says that Abraham is an “excellent example” for the believers when he tells his family and other pagans that “there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone” (60:4). The same verse relates that Abraham is not an excellent example when he tells his father, “I will pray for forgiveness for you.”

Thus the Koran, in the passages cited by Bush and Hughes, holds up hatred as exemplary, while belittling the virtue of forgiveness. Bush and Hughes were therefore inadvertently reinforcing a worldview that takes for granted the legitimacy of everlasting enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims — and doing so, naively, while attempting to build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. This demonstrates once again how crucial it is for American policymakers to have a detailed understanding of Islam’s theological and cultural frame of reference, and of the actual teachings of the Koran. For lack of this understanding, careless statements continue to be made, and policy errors keep multiplying.

Self-Taught

November 10, 2010

One of the many attacks that Muslims and their apologists make against their opponents is that Kafir (non-Muslim) critics are self-educated. They say the only way to understand Islam is to ask a Muslim or a university trained “expert”. What could be wrong with this advice?

Let’s use an actual problem; today Sharia law is being used to show how Islam works at the political level and how it is a disaster for our civilization.

Sharia is such a horror show for Kafirs that Islam and its apologists say many things to draw attention away from it. They say that Sharia is an antique from the year 1400 and no one really uses such an old text (an example is the Traveller, see below). In short, it is a relic of history; it doesn’t really apply today. Don’t worry.

A professor says that the Sharia is not really important; Sharia is flexible; it changes; there are different schools; no nation is actually ruled by Sharia. Sharia is nothing to worry about. So says the “expert”. This judgment is delivered by a “university expert”. We know this is not true. We know that Sharia is a driving force in Islam. How could an “expert” be wrong?

How do we determine the true nature of Islam? How do we prove anything about Islam? How can you refute an “expert”?

A classic Sharia text, Reliance of the Traveller, has no less than four high scholars, who say that in 1991 that the Reliance is to the benefit of the Muslim community and the path of Muslims today. The university experts dismiss the Sharia as being irrelevant today. Who are we to believe, the professors or the prominent Islamic scholars?

This question can be answered by the fact that all Sharia is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is pure Mohammed and Koran is the delivered by Mohammed, so we can say that Mohammed is the only standard for truth in Islam.

If an expert gives advice about Islam or Sharia that agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed then the expert is wrong. Hence, the only way to know Islam is to know Mohammed. This translates into knowing Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (life of Mohammed). If you would read Hadith and Sira (which are well translated), you would not need an expert, you would be an expert.

However, the experts denigrate any knowledge based on the actual reading of Islamic texts. Sir Isaac Newton was self-educated about physics. Einstein was self-educated in relativity. Indeed, people who are self-educated in their area of advancement have done the greatest work in humanity. However, for you to be self-educated is an act of bigotry.

The highest goal of education is that the students will be able to educate themselves after school. The elites do not want any ideas that do not come from “experts”. You might get ideas that are not elitist approved. The elites all favor Islam and never advance any critical ideas.

We have to educate ourselves because the universities are bankrupt on the subject of Islam. They do not allow any teaching about Islam that is critical and uses critical thought from the standpoint of the Kafir. No debate is allowed. Only Muslims and dhimmi apologists are allowed to speak about Islam. Anyone who disagrees based on their own understanding is a bigot.

The first European universities were based on the study of authorities. One day in class the discussion was about how many teeth a horse had. Aristotle said one number and Galen said another. The way to resolve this was to establish who was the greatest man. While the argument about whether Aristotle was a greater scholar than Galen went on, a student went out into the courtyard and counted the number of teeth in a tethered horse. When he returned with the number, the teacher beat him. Knowledge that was based on experimental data and self-education was forbidden. That is the nature of the academic “authorities” and the media today.

To know which expert is right is not a matter of college credentials or religion, but knowing which expert agrees with Koran and Sunna. Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed.

Get to know Mohammed. To know Mohammed is to be an expert. Be self-taught and read the foundational books-Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Note: Don’t think that you can pick up any biography of Mohammed and get to know the true man. Almost every biography of Mohammed is whitewashed. The Sira (Ishaq’s Sira Rasul Allah can be found in Mohammed and the Unbelievers) is the gold standard. If the bio does not include the annihilation and subjugation of the Jews, torture, slavery, plots, raids, assassinations, battles, secret agents and spies, then it is not a complete biography. Mohammed’s rise to power included an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws. The result is that when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better than for non-Muslims. Several recent examples illustrate this point.

Christianity Suppressed

In October, students at a Chattanooga, Tennessee high school were told that their longtime tradition of praying at practice and before games would no longer be allowed. The school superintendent had called an end to prayer at all school functions following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

In July, students visiting the Supreme Court from an Arizona Christian school were stopped by police as they bowed their heads and quietly prayed for the justices. The students were standing outside the court building to the side at the bottom of the building steps. They weren’t blocking traffic, but an officer abruptly approached them and ordered them to stop praying immediately.

Four Christians were arrested in June for disorderly conduct at the Dearborn Arab International Festival after handing out copies of the Gospel of John. The four had stationed themselves five blocks from the festival and did not actively approach anyone, but instead waited for others to approach them. Still, police officers confiscated their video cameras and led the four Christians away in handcuffs to shouts of “Allah hu Akbar” from Muslim bystanders.

In June of 2006, an instrumental rendition of “Ave Maria” was banned at the Henry Jackson High School graduation in Everett, Washington. Despite Justice Samuel Alito’s protests, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether the case was an example of censorship of student speech.

In direct contrast to the above incidents, which limit Christian prayer and expression, numerous examples exist of special accommodations for Muslim activities and religious practices. These indicate an adherence to a separate and distinct policy for Muslims that mirrors the supremacist requirements of shariah law.

Islam Accepted

In the State of California, 7th-grade students at Excelsior Middle School in Discovery Bay, California adopted Muslim names, prayed on prayer rugs, and celebrated Ramadan under a state-mandated curriculum that requires instruction about various religions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again declined to hear legal challenges by concerned Excelsior parents, who complained that the instruction was actually religious indoctrination and that Christianity and Judaism were not given equal time and exposure. The curriculum has been upheld as appropriate multicultural material.

After Carver Elementary School in San Diego absorbed Muslim students from a defunct charter school in September 2006, a special recess was provided for the students to pray, classes were segregated by gender, and pork was removed from the school menu. A teacher’s aide at the school led children in prayer and was provided with a lesson plan allotting an hour of class time for Islamic prayer. In essence, Muslim students alone were privileged with public school time to practice their religion at an additional cost of $450,000 in public funds and a loss of instruction time. (Note: Looked this up also and revised it a bit as well.)

In May, students at a Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school visited a local radical mosque and participated in a prayer session. Parents, who gave signed permission for students to visit the mosque, were not informed in advance that students would also be bowing to Allah and listening to lectures on Islam. Surprisingly, teachers did nothing to intervene as students participated and a mosque spokesperson denigrated Western civilization while glorifying and misrepresenting Islam, even falsely referring to the greater rights of women under Islam. Astonishingly, this occurred in a state that has prohibited the sale of Christmas items, including red and green tissue paper, at a school store and forced firefighters to remove a “Merry Christmas” sign from their station.

Over the last few years, the University of Michigan, a taxpayer-funded school, has provided separate prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, requiring bathroom modifications costing over $100,000, for Muslim observances.

At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where religious displays, including those for Christmas, have been strictly prohibited, foot-washing facilities are being installed using taxpayer dollars after one student slipped and injured herself washing her feet in a sink. Director of Legal Affairs and President Phil Davis justified the disparate treatment of Muslims, explaining, “The foot-washing facilities are not about religion; they are about public safety.”

Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities. The resulting traffic jams are ignored, the double- and illegally parked vehicles are free of citations, and law enforcement officers are nowhere to be seen. Surely, practitioners of other religions or groups planning similar gatherings would be required to obtain permits for such an activity. Reportedly, the police have been ordered not to interfere with the Muslim prayer spectacle.

These special accommodations for Muslims effectively elevate the Islamic faith above that of Christians and Jews, reinforcing the message of the Koran — “Allah proclaims Islam over all other religions” (48:28), “Islam will dominate other religions” (9:33), and “Islam does not coexist with other faiths” (5:51). Muslims are required by the teachings of their faith to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims and Ensure worldwide submission to Islam — “The believers must make war on infidels around them and let the infidels find firmness in them” (9:123).

Under Islamic shariah law, Christians may not even speak to Muslims about Christianity nor provide them with any literature about Christianity. With the recent arrests of Christians in Dearborn juxtaposed with prostrate Muslim worshipers in Manhattan (where a mosque is planned at Ground Zero at the same location where a church will not be rebuilt), it appears that the principles of Islamic supremacy and prohibitions against Christian proselytizing have begun to gain traction in America.

Meanwhile, Christianity in America is withering as Bible study is eradicated in public schools, crosses are removed from the public square, and “winter holidays” replace Christmas celebrations. Remarkably, as Christianity is being dethroned and denied public expression, Islam is being unabashedly and openly promoted in what has been a Christian country for over two hundred years. It is truly remarkable that as American students chant prayers in Arabic in California’s classrooms, Christmas music and graphics that refer to both Christmas and Chanukah are prohibited in New Jersey.

Censure of Non-Muslims

Further, the First Amendment, free-speech rights of non-Muslims are being curtailed amidst the demands of Muslims who operate under few constraints. While non-Muslims are self-censoring out of fear and being shut down by authorities, Muslims enjoy almost unfettered rights to speak out.

For example, leading up to the 9th anniversary of the Muslim attack on 9/11, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida announced that he would burn the Koran in protest of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Not only was Jones’s life threatened by Muslims, but an Obama administration official asked him to cancel his plans. New York Governor David A. Paterson commented in response to Jones’ threat: “More and more, particularly this year, I feel that the memory of those who were lost is being disrespected.” However, Paterson did not criticize the Muslim threat on Jones’ life, nor the plan itself to build a mosque over the remains of the victims of Islamic terrorism killed on 9/11.

While Pastor Jones was punished by the loss of his mortgage and insurance and was presented with a bill for $180,000 for security by the City of Gainesville, Muslims avoided any public opprobrium even though twenty innocent people around the world died during Muslim protests against Jones. Like the response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons years earlier, the Koran-burning activity was suppressed and censured as disrespectful to Muslims. It was even compared to the burning of churches and synagogues. Yet Muslims who threatened violent reprisals against Jones were not warned that attempts to curtail First Amendment rights and even mayhem, assaults, or murder would not be tolerated and would be punished to the full extent of the law.

In another instance of free speech rights violations, when New Jersey Transit Authority (NJTA) worker Derek Fenton burned a Koran near Ground Zero on 9-11, he was promptly removed by authorities as much for the perceived insult to Islam as for his own safety. The very next day, he was fired from his job of eleven years.

In October, NPR reporter,Juan Williams was fired for expressing on Fox News a fear shared by the majority of Americans in a post-9/11 world — his discomfort about being on a plane with people who dress as conservative Muslims. Thanks to pressure from CAIR, a Hamas-supporting, extremist-linked organization, Williams was punished for this thoughtcrime and, without first talking to Williams, an NPR spokesperson broke the news on Twitter. Ironically, CAIR spokespersons are regular guests on NPR programs.

Cartoonist Molly Norris was forced to disappear after declaring April 20 “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Norris ignited a religious firestorm with radical Islamic cleric Imam Anwar al-Awlaki publicly ordering her execution. Under FBI recommendations and at her own expense, Norris went underground, changing her name and identity. She is no longer publishing cartoons at the publication where she has been a regular contributor.

Freedom of Speech for Muslims

Whereas Norris was forced to enter a witness-protection program in response to a fatwa against her, Islamic leaders enjoy unlimited freedom to spread their messages of hate within the United States. Some even receive protection at taxpayer expense, as did Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Egyptian-American Sufi imam who plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Rauf is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, endeavors to supplant U.S. law with shariah, and refuses to condemn jihadist groups and terrorism. In addition, he refused to sign a pledge revoking the mandatory death sentence for Muslim apostasy, has encouraged U.S. government officials to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas, and blames the United States for 9/11. Imam Rauf, who created the Shariah Index Project, which rates countries around the world on shariah compliance, has said that he believes in shariah supremacy.

Tariq Ramadan, a highly controversial leader in the fundamentalist Muslim world and the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, visited the United States in April. As a keynote speaker at the Hamas-supporting Council on American Islam Relations and as a speaker before another Muslim Brotherhood organization, the Muslim American Society, Ramadan refused to condemn the shariah law provision that calls for stoning women for alleged improprieties or to denounce suicide bombing. Ramadan is suspected by U.S. intelligence of having ties to al-Qaeda. He espouses amicable messages of peace and respect when speaking with Western audiences, while endorsing Wahhabism and spreading hatred of the West to Arabic-speaking audiences.

Even Muslims targeted by our own government for their crimes receive protection. Anwar al-Awlaki, dubbed the “bin Laden of the internet” and suspected of having prior knowledge of 9/11 by having met privately with two of the 9/11 hijackers, has been defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. After President Obama approved placing Awlaki on a government assassination list, the ACLU initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging the order to kill him. This despite Awlaki being on the FBI’s Most Wanted List and his having met and corresponded with Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin. He trained the Christmas underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was the inspiration for Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square car bomber. In a recent video delivered to CNN, Awlaki stated that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against the United States.

Nine years after 9/11, in contrast to protections enjoyed by Muslims, individuals perceived by Muslims to have damaged Islam in some way have been threatened, fired, and publicly censured. This development indicates how far we have come down the road to dhimmitude, a subservient status in relation to Muslims. Clearly, if Norris had organized a Draw Jesus or Draw Moses Day, her life would be very much intact. If Juan Williams had talked about his fear of fundamentalist Christians, he would still be an NPR host in good standing. Had Jones burned the Old Testament, twenty people murdered by Muslims jihadists would still be alive, his reputation would be untarnished, and his financial situation would be undamaged. Had Derek Fenton burned a copy of the Old or New Testament, it is unlikely that the NJTA would have taken any action against him.

Islamization of America

We are witnessing a transformation of American society in which Islam enjoys a privileged place among the country’s religions. The sensitivities of the country’s 3 to 5 million Muslims are considered above those of non-Muslims. Non-Muslims even assist sensitive Muslims in the weeding out of potentially offensive statements or actions that could be remotely critical of Islam or Muslims. Since 9/11, Americans have been well-trained not to talk about Islam and terrorism or to use the word “jihad.” Publicly criticizing, voicing concern about, or even expressing fear about Muslim behavior or activities is forbidden. While other religions may be freely criticized, lampooned in cartoons, and denigrated by artwork, Islam is sacred, supreme, and beyond reproach.

Every effort is made in the United States to accommodate Muslims and engage them in interfaith dialogue and community affairs. Muslims may pray openly in public — on city streets and in airport terminals. Many U.S. government departments hold Iftar dinners to celebrate the end of Ramadan. The Ground Zero mosque will be built over the ashes of 9/11 victims, but the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed by Muslims will not. Non-Muslims enjoy no such privileges or special treatment in Muslim countries. They may not visit Mecca nor build churches or synagogues. U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia are prohibited from wearing visible religious symbols.

The foregoing examples, not exhaustive by any means, point to the fact that we are living under a de facto shariah law system in the United States today that has compromised the freedoms we have enjoyed under our Constitution — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Now, we no longer enjoy equal protection under the law. Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression. This has led to the stealthy introduction of shariah law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions.

Instead, claims of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bias are rampant. Yet consider the following: the Muslim atrocity of 9/11, the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim Abdulmutallab to detonate plastic explosive in his underwear on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2009, the massacre of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood by jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hassan in 2009, the failed bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad last May, the violent jihad plot in North Carolina planned by Daniel Patrick Boyd, the recent storming of a Baghdad church and murder of 58 Christians, the UPS plot to bomb synagogues in the Chicago area uncovered this past weekend, and countless other incidents over the past several years.

It is not irrational and biased to fear practitioners of a religion who are trying to kill non-Muslims based on teachings from their religion’s doctrine. Apologists for Islam whitewash these events, but Islamic teachings (Reliance of the Traveller, o4.9, p. 590) specifically state that a Muslim’s life is worth three times that of a Christian or Jew and fifteen times more than that of a Zoroastrian. (The Consulate General of India, Jeddah lists indemnities for Hindus and Buddhists at 1/15 that of Muslims). When non-Muslims so much as express any discomfort with Muslims and Islamic ideology, they risk public censure, financial ruin, loss of livelihood, and even death. he United States is truly under shariah law when it is forbidden and a punishable offense to call out Islamic doctrine for what it is.

NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.

A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.

In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.

Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam. After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?

Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law. The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.

The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam. Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009. And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.

When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred. The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world. The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.

Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise. But there is more here than meets the eye.

Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions. Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”

In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.

Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:

“Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.” Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns. I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence. It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”

Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing. Don’t shut down free speech. Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.

It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam. But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness. As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst, a New York Best-selling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped” and president and CEO of ACT for America.org. Guy Rodgers is Executive Director of ACT for America.org.

As I mentioned a few days ago, the German journalist Michael Mannheimer gave a speech last Saturday at the rally for free speech in Amsterdam. Mr. Mannheimer spoke at length about the bloody history of Islamic aggression in Europe.

Our regular reader and commenter Heroyalwhyness kindly transcribed all four parts of the video for us. Henrik Ræder Clausen then filled in some of the difficult parts of the text, and edited the result into a more coherent form.

I have further modified their preliminary work by smoothing out some of the irregularities in the English and editing the prose for clarity. The result is below.

Welcome. We are now in the year 2010 in the midst of the biggest threat to Europe in history.

We are in the midst of the third attack of Islam against Europe. The first attack took place shortly after Muhammad died, and the Muslim conquerors conquered Spain, and the Spanish Islamization took six hundred years and ended in 1492 with a big Reconquista. In spite of what in many books is written and written again, despite the “peaceful Cordoba Islam”, the truth was very different.

The truth was that the Muslims killed millions of Christians and Jews and destroyed churches, and it should be known that the second attack of the Ottoman Empire began with the conquest of Constantinople, and ended after the First World War, 1918. During this 455 years of Ottoman attacks against Europe, millions of people, millions of innocent Christians and Jews were killed under unbelievably cruel conditions.

Turkey, as the father of the Ottoman Empire, led altogether twenty-nine wars. Twenty-nine wars against Europe during these 455 years. And it is now undertaking its thirtieth war, because Turkey is now one of the leading Islamic countries in the world, on a par with Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

In Turkish political circles they do not speak about Germany as “Germany”. They speak about “West Turkey” already. And we have seen how Erdogan came to Germany like a Caliph who wanted to control everything that is happening, and going on as if he wanted some kind of Islamization. But now we have a far bigger threat than ever in history of Europe. Much bigger even than the threats of Hitler and of communism. The difference is the following:

Hitler had a country of about 75 million people, and Hitler had an overall history of thirteen years in power. But the Muslims have had much greater experience, 1,400 years of Islamization on different fields. They are much better organized. They are worldwide, and they have 1.4 billion people behind them. The consequence of that power of the umma we see everyday. We saw it last time, very dramatically with the Mohammad cartoons in Denmark.

The difference is also that the frontier of this attack doesn’t lie along the borders of Europe. We don’t see the enemy as an enemy. The enemy is among us. The enemy is the system of Islam, and not necessarily the Muslim people. But thus far they are Muslims. In the same way they are fulfilling the main aim of Islam, which is conquering the world, as were the peace-loving among the Germans, who were a majority of 80% during the Hitler system, too.

Even with their lesser numbers they make the rest of Islam, a very bad power, strong. And they make it strong also by failing to criticize the bad things in their religion. Why don’t they criticize it? They don’t criticize it because it brings a death sentence to criticize Islam. This is an order by Mohammed. And this is the only religion in the world that does that; I have been in all religions.

I lived in Buddhist countries sixteen years. I lived in Hindu countries many, many years. I know the Christian and the Jewish. This is unique. No other country has an order to kill those who criticize their religion. And there is another order: killing those who abandon their religion, meaning Islam. So both these things are far and away against the human rights of Europe. The human rights of free speech and the human rights of free choices of human individuals to choose what they want. And this has nothing to do with the freedom of religion, which also involves the freedom having no religion.

[disturbance in the background] Ok, ok, ok… can you please bring this man away?

Some data about the third wave of attack. I will mention now, first, the demographic data:
1945 there were only 645,000 Muslims in Europe

Now in the year 2010 we already have 55 million Muslims, a number which is growing by one million immigrants from Muslim countries every year, and we will even get more by the Lisbon treaties, which demand more, one hundred million. I repeat, one hundred million Muslims by the year 2030. Of all immigrants since 1990, in the twenty years up to today the portion of Muslim immigrants was 90%. This is the information which you cannot read in the newspapers, and you will not hear that from politicians. In Sweden alone, in the capital of Sweden, there are twenty suburbs that have over 70% Muslims; by their increasing numbers, in five years most of them will have 100% Muslims.

The population growth of the Muslims in Europe is unique too. Every ten years, the number of Muslim doubles. This is by far the highest increase of population in history of mankind. This would mean that we would have about 6.5 billion more people worldwide in the year 2020. Thirteen billion people worldwide. We have a birth jihad. Imams in all mosques are demanding that their believers to make as many children as they can. I call it a birth jihad. So you see one of the results is Mohammed is already the first name most selected in Sweden, Norway, England and Holland. So listen, of all newborn, male children in those countries Mohammed is the most frequently given first name.

[Another disturbance.]

Ladies and gentlemen, the new fascism is showing up under the name of anti-fascism. You see that clearly here. The fascistic are the Left and Green parties all over Europe. They betray their own people concerning the facts of Islamization, and they have brought millions of Muslim people into Europe without asking their own peoples. They are betrayers of their own peoples. You have seen here one of the attacks… as have been done over the last ten years.

In Great Britain, in the last thirty years, the Muslim population grew from 82,000 to 2.5 million. That is 40 times more in the last thirty years. In Holland, over 50% of newborns are already Muslims. And in the year 2025, fifty percent of the population will be Muslim. In Belgium, 25% of population is already Muslim and 50% of all newborns are Muslim. In Germany, there is a government paper which says [three] things which I will translate into English.

The fall of the German population is unstoppable.

The downward spiral is irreversible.

In 2050, Germany will be an Islamic State.

This is an internal paper of the German government. You can find it in Google and read it. The social cost and criminal cost are always things which the media and politicians keep secret from their own populations. And so the media behave the same way as if they were oppressed by an outer power. They suppress their data. The real information and the truth, they have themselves controlled the information.

I’ll tell you some interesting facts about the social and criminal costs for Europe. In Switzerland, 80% of all social costs go to the 9% of immigrants. Now, politicians say, “we once installed the social system for keeping the original Swiss people from falling down, but now we just support Muslims.”

In Berlin, Germany — 70% of the intensive criminals in Berlin are Muslim. And listen: 90% of all criminals in Berlin are Muslims. 75% of all Turkish immigrants could not finish school, and 73% of all immigrants don’t work and are supported for life by the German social system. In France, 70% of all prisoners are Muslims but they are only 12% of the population. Ladies and gentlemen, these are facts which nobody can deny. I never was accused by my enemies when talking about the facts ,because it was proved by trial that those facts were right.

[Interruption by security cautioning attendants to move back away from stage for the safety of the speakers. Mr. Mannheimer requests for a policeman on his side — potential altercation not visible on screen]

In Norway, more than 50% of all social benefits go to Muslims. In Sweden €6.7 billion in social costs for Muslims. And their high [inaudible] rates like never before in the history of Sweden, the incidence of rape is now four times bigger than twenty years ago. Parallel to a four times higher Muslim population. In Oslo, in the year 2009, 100% of all rapists were non-indigenous people of Norway — they were Muslims.

The number of no-go areas in Europe is dramatically increasing, with over 1,000 no-go areas already. Imams in all mosques invite their believers not to pay tax anymore to the system, because this will bring the breakdown of Europe, will push it forward. They also pray: kill all homosexuals. They also pray: make as many kids as you can, you can make them and go to the social system. In mosques all over Europe they hold courses on how to get social money.

And, now listen: we have no “immigrant” problem in Europe. We have a problem only with Muslim immigrants. We have no problem with non-Muslim immigrants.

[applause — BRAVO]

And what is never said and never written, never in talk shows on TV or in newspaper, is that in the law of Islam, the Qur’an forbids Muslims under the threat of death to integrate into a non-Muslim country. I cite Qur’an Sura 5, Verse 51: “Oh, believers! Don’t make friends with Christians and Jews who are your neighbors. If you do that, you are no Muslims anymore and you will be treated worse than the unbelievers.” Ladies and gentlemen, this is being prayed in the mosques, which are pushed in the way of many politicians.

In Spain, an imam wrote a book: how to beat your wife properly. This book sold 800,000 copies and it goes back to the Sura for which says to the Muslims to beat their woman.

But, ladies and gentlemen, the real opponents, the real enemies aren’t the Muslims. No Muslims packed up their baggage and came here by foot. They were invited by the politicians by the millions and millions. Never have they asked the people of their countries to have it so. We have four supporters of Islamization. One is politicians. The second are the tripart of the churches. The third are the media, and the fourth are the intellectuals.

I’ll give you some examples. Left-wing and Green politicians always say in their speeches that Europe needs more and more Muslims in order that Europe will survive the next years. This is, ladies and gentlemen, one of the biggest lies in the present day. Because the real reason can be read in the book by Joschka Fischer — he wrote it in 1994 — The Risk Germany.

They [the Greens] wrote it in order to bring future voters for their party because the native people did not vote the way they wanted in number. Fischer also said in this book that we have to put out our indigenous population and fill it with immigrants so that we can take power. To repeat, a German minister one of the leaders of the Green Party says: “I am happy if Germany disappears from the world map.”

This, ladies and gentlemen is the same as…

[break]

Muslims can beat their daughters very heavily to prevent them from integrating into the Western style in Italy. So, in Germany, in churches make rules that Muslim pupils don’t need to join class excursions from school, don’t need to take part in swimming lessons, and don’t need to take part in the gymnastic lessons. This, ladies and gentlemen is a general attack on indigenous Europeans from highest positions, against their own constitutions. This is a betrayal of most powerful people against their own country, and against the tradition and history of our great and free continent. If nothing else, a revolt from the top against their people.

What can we do against it?

I come now to the end. Accuse them, if you know those who are judged as breaking the law. Accuse him and bring him for trial. I propose that we remember all the names who are giving help and support to the Muslims, for a second Nuremberg trial which must be held in ten or twenty years. This is my deep belief. We cannot let those betrayers, those co-workers with one of the biggest — I say one of the biggest — totalitarian repressive systems, Islam, to get off without paying that which they have to pay.

Don’t vote for those parties who want to bring Muslims to power and bring more Muslims and more and more again to Europe.

Don’t buy those newspapers which lie about the real situation.

And I say, may this day be the beginning of a European and worldwide Reconquista of our Western values, and let us defend these values by all means, and with our lives.

FOR THE MOST PART, debating is frustrating. If your objective is to change your opponent’s mind, debating is a largely useless and futile exercise. If you’re debating in public, that’s a different story, because you can change the audiences’ minds if you debate well. But one-on-one, debate is an impotent weapon in the war of ideas.

You know people who believe Islam is a religion of peace and that you are an Islamophobic bigot for thinking otherwise, and you would like to change their minds. If you try to do it with debate, if you try to do it by answering arguments with arguments, no matter how good you are at arguing, no matter how many facts are in your favor, no matter how articulately you put your message across, the odds are a hundred to one against you succeeding.

I’m sure you’ve already discovered the painful and frustrating truth of this. Back and forth, right and wrong, will not work. You cannot penetrate.

What we need is transformational dialog. Not mere debate. We need influence, not mere argument. We need to effectively persuade, not just get peoples’ hackles up and let them dig themselves deeper into their position.

The following is a list of ideas you can use — ideas you can add to your attempts to educate people about Islam. You already have “argument” in your arsenal. Below are additional weapons you can use. We’ll be adding more articles to this list in the near future, but we can start with these:

Let’s not get stuck answering argument for argument in one-on-one debates. Presenting a logical, factual argument to answer an argument is a relatively weak tool because the other side of the debate often uses it equally well. We have more effective tools at our disposal, and we should learn to use them to our advantage. Failure is not an option. We must open the minds of our fellow non-Muslims and we must do it quickly.

Our British correspondent Gaia was in Amsterdam for the free speech rally yesterday. Below is her report, written while on the train on the way home to London.

My Farewell Message to Mayor Eberhard Van der Laan
by Gaia

My thoughts for Mayor Van der Laan as I wend my way back home by train from Amsterdam:

Sir, you should be ashamed of yourself! The disgraceful treatment meted out to our Tommy and his friends, who came in peace to Holland to speak out about the invasion of your country by people hostile to your culture and way of life brings to my mind their forefathers, the other Tommies. In the not so distant past, those Tommies came willingly to help their Dutch brothers liberate your country from the boot of fascism, many of them dying in the process.

You are a disgrace to their memory!

But rest assured, Mayor Van der Laan: this will not be forgotten! Your time is coming to an end. The tides are changing in Europe and its people will no longer tolerate living as second class citizens in their own lands. The day of reckoning for you and your (il)liberal ilk will surely follow.

My view from the window in the autumn sunshine is of a postage stamp-sized little country where every square centimetre is lovingly tended and orderly. It brings to mind the poignant, closing paragraphs of the excellent book While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, who expresses it so much more eloquently than I:

As we walked around Amsterdam that March weekend, I thought about those Dutchmen emigrating to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Unlike Muslims in Europe, they’d integrate quickly — they’d find work, contribute to society, fit in. They already spoke English. Yet what, years from now, would their children think? Their grandchildren? What, for that matter, would they themselves think when they lay in bed at night, far from home, their minds flooding with images of the small, loving tended land of their birth, with its meticulously laid-out roads and walks and bicycle lanes, its painstakingly preserved old houses, its elaborate, brilliantly designed systems of dikes and canals.

The irony was tragic: having protected themselves with nothing short of genius from the violence of the sea, having instituted a welfare system meant to safeguard every last one of them from so much as a moment’s financial insecurity, and having built up a culture of extraordinary freedom and tolerance that promised each of them a life of absolute dignity and perfect equality, post-war Dutch men and women had raised up their children into tall, strapping, healthy, multilingual young adults — veritable masters of the world for whom (they were confident) life would be safe, pleasant and abundant in its rewards. They seemed to have brought Western civilization to its utmost pinnacle in terms of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, and the road ahead seemed to stretch to the horizon, straight, flat, smooth, and with nary a bump.

And yet they’d turned a blind eye to the very peril that would destroy them.

Below is the speech given at today’s demonstration at Generatorstraat in Amsterdam by the British author and former Parliamentary candidate Paul Weston.

Hello. My name is Paul Weston, and I represent the International Free Press Society.

And I am standing here today because our liberal elites have betrayed our countries to Islam.

Forty-two years ago the British politician Enoch Powell made his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, in which he stated that “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

Our politicians today do the exact opposite. They actively promote a preventable evil.

But eighty years ago one man, Winston Churchill, was very clear about preventing a clear and present evil, Herr Hitler and the Nazis. But Churchill was a lone voice crying in the wind of appeasement, and the carnage that could have been avoided came with a vengeance.

And today Europe finds itself in much the same position. Even as Islam grows demographically, territorially, and militantly, it is promoted as the “religion of peace” by the same type of cowardly, careerist politicians who once appeased Hitler.

Islam was not the religion of peace to Winston Churchill. He described it as the religion of blood and war.

Anyone with a knowledge of the foundations and history of Islamic expansion knows this to be the truth.

Mohammed was a warlord. And a very good warlord indeed. By the time of his death he had militarily defeated and converted most of the pagan and Christian tribes of the Arabian Peninsula.

After his death Islam rapidly expanded at the point of a sword, defeating ancient civilisations and overrunning continents as it did so.

And today it is within Europe, it is within the West, and it is calling for what it has always called for: total Islamic domination. And if we wish to resist, then they will use terror against us.

Yet still our treasonous politicians call it the “religion of peace”, and tell us that if we refuse to share such a fantastical and ridiculous notion, that if we choose to believe Winston Churchill’s argument that Islam is a religion of blood and war, then we will be sent to prison.

Of course it is not a religion of peace. Its founder was a warrior, and the highest honour bestowed upon a Muslim is the promise of hordes of scented houris and an eternal leg-over in the after life, achievable not by being a good Samaritan, but by dying as a martyr in the physical battle to expand imperialist Islam.

Islam divides the world into two spheres. The House of Islam (submission) and the House of War. What kind of religion defines itself by military conquest?

Yet our leaders tell us we cannot criticise Islam because it is a religion, whilst the organisation of the Islamic conference, in cahoots with the united nations is striving to make any criticism of Islam illegal.

But Islam is so much more than just a religion. It is a political, social, legal and structural blueprint which totally dominates a devout Muslim’s life, and wishes coincidentally to dominate all devout non-Muslims’ lives as well.

It is profoundly illiberal and it is profoundly undemocratic. It does not believe in the man-made laws of democracy, preferring instead to adhere to the absolute word of Allah, as interpreted by an illiterate 7th-century desert dweller.

And our politicians have imported this illiberal and undemocratic ideology into the liberal democracies than make up the West, and then they dare to criminalise us when we object to this!
But how can we not criticise Islam? Can our politicians really protect it as a religion and therefore place it out of legal reach?

When homosexuals are hung from cranes, is this political Islam in action or religious Islam?

When adulterous women are buried up to their shoulders in sand and stoned to death, is this political Islam or religious Islam?

When Muslims who wish to leave Islam are issued with death sentences, is this political Islam, or is this religious Islam?

When wives and daughters are slaughtered to protect their families’ honour by husbands fathers and uncles, is this political Islam or religious Islam?

If it is political, then it must be denounced as evil and barbaric. If it religious, how can it possibly not be denounced as the same? What is evil is evil and what is barbaric is barbaric and cannot be exempted from criticism because it is sheltered by the word “religion”.

In criminalising free speech, our socialist leaders reveal their dictatorial ambition. The mark of a free society is freedom of speech. To take this away is a totalitarian act, made all the worse because freedom of speech is our only defence in the peaceful opposition against the foreign totalitarian ideology of Islam.

And I hope this irony is not lost on you. In order to protect and advance a foreign totalitarian ideology, our own rulers are prepared to adopt native totalitarian means to stop us defending our democracy and our freedom.

The West lives in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Islam does not. They signed up instead to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

But they have a very important caveat: when sharia law collides with human rights law, guess which law prevails?

Quite so. Sharia is the top trumps when it comes to human rights.

This is like a signatory to the Geneva convention murdering and torturing prisoners of war, and being given a pass at a war trial because it was “part of their religion.”

And when our politicians today excuse Islam as a religion of peace and allow them to set the rules both at home, at the European Union, and at the United Nations, then our politicians are betraying their countries and they are betraying their people. They are committing treason.

“Can one commit treason in a time of peace?” people may ask. But are we really at peace?

We may not consider ourselves at war with Islam, but Islam considers itself at war with us.

And it is a war we are losing. Territorially, demographically, politically, and democratically.

In fact, it is a war of aggression on two fronts. Radical Islam on the one, and left-wing treason on the other.

Our children are told to celebrate multiculturalism and Islam, without being told the real history of violent expansionist Islam.

Instead, they are told that their own history, their religion, their culture, their traditions, their very being, is just a litany of imperialism, racism, murder and slavery. This is a proven psychological technique designed to render an enemy helpless, or to quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “in order to destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”

Any government that does this to its own people, to its own children, is a government that deserves, manifestly deserves, to be overthrown.

Can anyone really argue that a government that praises the foreign invader whilst psychologically and legally stripping away the defences of its people is a government that is not guilty of treason?

Now here we come to a more uplifting part of this depressing monologue, because in this part of the battle we are advancing. Slowly, admittedly, but relentlessly, and I think we are now unstoppable.

The Sweden Democrats, Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, and in England we await a political movement to pick up the baton from the rapidly growing English Defence League.

And that growth can only accelerate. As more and more people become aware of Islam and become aware of the depth of treason perpetrated by their liberal rulers, and most importantly, as people lose their fear of being labelled a racist — which was a label specifically designed to strip us of resistance against a racially designated invader who uses race as a weapon.

In fact, let us deal with this “racist” label right now. It is not racist to defend your country against an obvious and growing threat. It is not racist to defend your culture, your heritage, and your traditions. It is not racist to work to ensure a democratic future for your children and grandchildren.

If you choose not to defend your country, your culture and the democratic future of your children, then you may well pat yourselves on the back in your non-racist champagne socialist cocktail bars in Islington; you may well love other people’s anti-racist credentials almost as much as you love your own; but there is no getting away from the label I have for you.

You are a traitor and a betrayer of your country, a betrayer of your culture, and a betrayer of our yet unborn children.

And you are a racist, indeed a genocidal racist. Young native Europeans will become a demographic ethnic minority within their own homelands if immigration rates and birth rates stay the way they are for just one more generation.

This can politely be called population replacement. More crudely, it is bloodless genocide.

The United Nations is very clear on this. Their definition of genocide is as follows. Quote.

Article 2.

In the present convention genocide means any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group.

We have been betrayed.

And one of the saddest aspects of this betrayal is the effect it has had on those old ex-warriors who fought for their countries in recent living memory.

Ex-Spitfire pilot Alex Henshaw died three years ago. He was acutely aware of the political betrayal of his country. He said:

“I feel extreme emotional sadness for the young men I knew that gave their lives willingly for a cause in which we all believed. And I often say to myself that if those young boys would come down now and walk through the villages, through the towns and through the cities and look around and see what is happening to us, they would say somewhere along the line we have been betrayed.”

Yes, Mr. Henshaw, I am afraid you have, and all of you socialist/liberal/left-wing people need to know what you have done.

You need to take a walk around your cities, towns and villages, take a look at the hundreds of thousand of graves standing as testament to the ultimate sacrifice made by our young men in order that you may live in a liberal democracy today.

You need to understand that this a not just betrayal, but a triple betrayal:

The betrayal of all our old soldiers whose sacrifice granted us freedom,

The betrayal of my generation who you threaten to imprison if we defend our inherited freedom, and

The betrayal of our yet unborn, who, unless we stop it seem set to inherit a country racked with tribal and religious hatred, which must inevitably lead to a continental scale multicultural war that will make the break-up of Yugoslavia look like a bun-fight.

And, of course, it is also the betrayal of freedom and democracy.

Because freedom and democracy did not just magically appear. They evolved over two and a half thousand years, rooted in Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian ancestry. And were fought for and defended with much blood and sacrifice.

Democracy and freedom are not the personal possessions of socialist politicians to be handed away, without our agreement, to the descendants of a 7th century desert warlord, who view our attachment to democracy as just a weakness to be used against us.

I do not blame Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims are just doing what it says in the book.

But I do blame our politicians. There are two sides in this civilisational stand-off, and our politicians have sided with the enemy.

So I say to them:

You may well hold the levers of power at the moment, but we are on the rise and we are unstoppable. Do you seriously think you can do what you have done to your own people without repercussion?

You could stop this now if you chose to, by the simple expedient of putting the interests of your own people before the interests of Islam.

But you won’t do that will you? So you put us in an almost impossible position. If we do nothing we must accept our children and grandchildren will one day live under sharia law.

And if we do something, then it must by definition be revolutionary. But we did not start this. You did. Most of us would have been quite happy to mow the lawn, hold down a mundane job, and pay our taxes.

You have made us revolutionaries. And whilst your behaviour suggests you fear Islam more than you fear us, let me tell you something, you lying, betraying, treacherous, socialist careerists:

We might not hold power today, but given another decade, we will, and then we will hold you to account. You will appear before a Nuremberg-style court, and you will be tried for treason, and you will be tried for crimes against humanity, and for the first time in a very long time you will be answerable to us!